Posted by tecwrg on 9/4/2013 3:08:00 PM (view original):Adam Jones is generally regarded as anywhere from a somewhat above average to a very good defensive center fielder.

In 2012, his dWAR was -1.3.

Which is more likely to be wrong . . . all the folks who watch him play and regard him highly? Or a number on a web page?

His UZR since he became a fulltime CF in Baltimore has ranged from a high of 6 in 2008 to a low of -8 in 2011. He has been in the range of -4 to -8 every year for the last 5 seasons (over 6000 innings). I'd say that, in reality, he is a below average center fielder and that the people that generally regard him as above average are wrong, which isn't unusual. How many gold gloves does Derek Jeter have?

Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):1. He was a ****** hitter when he first came up.
2. He got hurt.
3. He played well enough this year to make the All Star team
4. He was suspended in Biogenesis scandal.

Regardless, you either need a time machine or (god forbid) stats if you want to evaluate how well he played. People that like baseball tend to want to do things like evaluate how well a guy played.

Or, God forbid, I just don't care enough about a guy that's played for 5 ******* years and I still don't know who he is to argue about his defensive value. Or work my panties into a bunch because I can't put a NUMERIC VALUE to his defensive prowess using "what we have".

Some people who like baseball get curious about players they don't get to see play very often. Stats help with that.

Are you arguing that we shouldn't use the defensive stats that we have available now because they aren't good or because defensive stats are unnecessary?

Some people don't have time to worry about some non-descript SS on the Padres.

I'm arguing that no one on this site fully understands what goes behind with these new "defensive metrics". However, we seem to universally agree that they appear to be inconsistent and, for some, "it's the best we have." Do you disagree?

I think that, when applied correctly, UZR is useful and better than anything else we have.

Defense is important. Measuring it is important. We've gone from using mile markers (Gold Gloves & the good ole' eye test) to unmarked yard sticks (fielding percentage and range factor) to rulers with inch lines (UZR, DRS). We still need to find a way to measure in millimeters, but we're light years ahead of where we were just a couple decades ago.

Posted by burnsy483 on 9/4/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):Mike Trout is a good defender, right? If he puts up a -12.7 UZR next year, is he still a good defender?

That would give him a three year average of about 3. So he'd be just above league average for a CF.

I got 1.5, but whatever. You've been saying he's a great defender. You're using these stats, but also mention you need 3 years to determine that for sure. Does this sound like a good stat when you've been saying something that could easily be wrong? We were raving about his WAR last year, largely based on defense that could have been giving people the wrong impression about his ability.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):1. He was a ****** hitter when he first came up.
2. He got hurt.
3. He played well enough this year to make the All Star team
4. He was suspended in Biogenesis scandal.

Regardless, you either need a time machine or (god forbid) stats if you want to evaluate how well he played. People that like baseball tend to want to do things like evaluate how well a guy played.

Or, God forbid, I just don't care enough about a guy that's played for 5 ******* years and I still don't know who he is to argue about his defensive value. Or work my panties into a bunch because I can't put a NUMERIC VALUE to his defensive prowess using "what we have".

Some people who like baseball get curious about players they don't get to see play very often. Stats help with that.

Are you arguing that we shouldn't use the defensive stats that we have available now because they aren't good or because defensive stats are unnecessary?

Some people don't have time to worry about some non-descript SS on the Padres.

I'm arguing that no one on this site fully understands what goes behind with these new "defensive metrics". However, we seem to universally agree that they appear to be inconsistent and, for some, "it's the best we have." Do you disagree?

I think that, when applied correctly, UZR is useful and better than anything else we have.

Defense is important. Measuring it is important. We've gone from using mile markers (Gold Gloves & the good ole' eye test) to unmarked yard sticks (fielding percentage and range factor) to rulers with inch lines (UZR, DRS). We still need to find a way to measure in millimeters, but we're light years ahead of where we were just a couple decades ago.

You'll have to define "correctly" as I believe you use it to make your case when it helps and disregard it as flawed when it doesn't.

Posted by burnsy483 on 9/4/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):Mike Trout is a good defender, right? If he puts up a -12.7 UZR next year, is he still a good defender?

That would give him a three year average of about 3. So he'd be just above league average for a CF.

I got 1.5, but whatever. You've been saying he's a great defender. You're using these stats, but also mention you need 3 years to determine that for sure. Does this sound like a good stat when you've been saying something that could easily be wrong? We were raving about his WAR last year, largely based on defense that could have been giving people the wrong impression about his ability.

I've been saying he's a more valuable defender than Cabrera. He put up one year of great defensive numbers, but even if you regress those 50% (which is what's recommended) you still get an above average CF. But if he goes -13 next year, he's probably just an average defender.

His 2012 WAR was driven primarily by his offense (49 batting runs), then by his defense (13 fielding runs), then by his base running (12 brraa). If it turns out he isn't significantly above average defensively, his 2012 WAR will be a little lower, but not a ton.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/4/2013 3:08:00 PM (view original):Adam Jones is generally regarded as anywhere from a somewhat above average to a very good defensive center fielder.

In 2012, his dWAR was -1.3.

Which is more likely to be wrong . . . all the folks who watch him play and regard him highly? Or a number on a web page?

His UZR since he became a fulltime CF in Baltimore has ranged from a high of 6 in 2008 to a low of -8 in 2011. He has been in the range of -4 to -8 every year for the last 5 seasons (over 6000 innings). I'd say that, in reality, he is a below average center fielder and that the people that generally regard him as above average are wrong, which isn't unusual. How many gold gloves does Derek Jeter have?

So once again, your argument boils down to: people who watch baseball games and draw conclusions from what they see are wrong.

Posted by burnsy483 on 9/4/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):Mike Trout is a good defender, right? If he puts up a -12.7 UZR next year, is he still a good defender?

That would give him a three year average of about 3. So he'd be just above league average for a CF.

I got 1.5, but whatever. You've been saying he's a great defender. You're using these stats, but also mention you need 3 years to determine that for sure. Does this sound like a good stat when you've been saying something that could easily be wrong? We were raving about his WAR last year, largely based on defense that could have been giving people the wrong impression about his ability.

I've been saying he's a more valuable defender than Cabrera. He put up one year of great defensive numbers, but even if you regress those 50% (which is what's recommended) you still get an above average CF. But if he goes -13 next year, he's probably just an average defender.

His 2012 WAR was driven primarily by his offense (49 batting runs), then by his defense (13 fielding runs), then by his base running (12 brraa). If it turns out he isn't significantly above average defensively, his 2012 WAR will be a little lower, but not a ton.

Posted by burnsy483 on 9/4/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):Mike Trout is a good defender, right? If he puts up a -12.7 UZR next year, is he still a good defender?

That would give him a three year average of about 3. So he'd be just above league average for a CF.

I got 1.5, but whatever. You've been saying he's a great defender. You're using these stats, but also mention you need 3 years to determine that for sure. Does this sound like a good stat when you've been saying something that could easily be wrong? We were raving about his WAR last year, largely based on defense that could have been giving people the wrong impression about his ability.

I've been saying he's a more valuable defender than Cabrera. He put up one year of great defensive numbers, but even if you regress those 50% (which is what's recommended) you still get an above average CF. But if he goes -13 next year, he's probably just an average defender.

His 2012 WAR was driven primarily by his offense (49 batting runs), then by his defense (13 fielding runs), then by his base running (12 brraa). If it turns out he isn't significantly above average defensively, his 2012 WAR will be a little lower, but not a ton.

Recommended by who? And why?

Fangraphs. Regress it because the the year to year correlation is 0.5 (the year to year correlation of OPS is almost 0.7). With a correlation of 0.5, a player's true defensive talent after one year is as likely to be X as it is to be 0 UZR. So you average it out (regress it 50%).